Zang (and others), what links would you suggest: how to explain Bitcoin to treasurers of a trust which has just received a hefty donation in bitcoins, with a stipulation that they cannot be sold at will, rather according to The Plan  I don't know how trust treasurers think. Probably most important is they don't accidentally lose it. Maybe I'd just say it is a mathematically secure global asset register, and they just got a large share of it. If the world decides to go onto that asset register system, that share will be worth a lot. |
|
|
|
some might interpret that you're implying that climate change isn't real btw . . . .
The climate is changing, yes, as it always does. The idea that there is some serious crisis going on with man-made climate change is a total sham, however. Regardless of climate, ocean acidification via CO2 absorption is a serious threat to many marine species... especially tasty ones. Perhaps, and I haven't looked into that specifically but I wouldn't be surprised if that was a made-up thing as well. pH regulation should be among the easiest things for nature to handle. Much more difficult is pollutants and overfishing (that is one resource we can run out of, unlike oil). Leave that to Bitcoin. Property rights defined over oceans would end overfishing immediately. |
|
|
|
It's hard to believe I have something in common with climate science deniers.
I was converted over to Bitcoin and Austrian economic precisely because of my fundamental understand in environmental sustainability.
Understanding of Environmental Science is the catalyst that accelerates Bitcoin adoption to the masses.
I love that: "science" "deniers" - that's two appeals to authority in a single term. The climate change crowd is the most environmentally destructive out there. To care about carbon emissions over things that actually matter, like pollution, is anti-environmental alarmism. It's just an excuse for a global tax. I'm glad that whole charade is winding down, after changing its marketing from "global warming" to "climate change" after the earth refused to warm as commanded. It was one of the lamest spectacles I've seen. |
|
|
|
some might interpret that you're implying that climate change isn't real btw . . . .
The climate is changing, yes, as it always does. The idea that there is some serious crisis going on with man-made climate change is a total sham, however. |
|
|
|
An increasingly globalised humanity is faced with climate change,
dwindling resources, overpopulation and technological upheaval. Not a promising start: climate change BS, "running out of resources" fallacy (economic ignorance), overpopulation OK maybe, technological "upheaval" (is this supposed to be bad!?). Desperate attempts are made to stabilise Earth's climate, as a
post-capitalist world begins to emerge. More climate change BS, "post-capitalist"...stopped reading there. Maybe I was too judgmental, but I can't imagine that someone so ignorant about the basics of how the world works (I think my high school teachers said the exact same thing as this) would have any reliable insight on the future. yeah, the natural world is like a bottomless checkbook we can just take take take forever and nothing bad happens That's a strawman, but here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcWkN4ngR2Y |
|
|
|
|
You could define it that way, but I don't recommend it. It's too vague. In the first case you mean "indispensable" when you say essential, but in the definition it sounds more like "inherent" or "intrinsic." You need the Sun if you want to live. It is indispensable for life, therefore you who wants to live will value it. The value is nevertheless not inherent or essential to the Sun (as in being part of the essence of what it means to be the Sun), but rather you find it essential to you. One who lives in a nuclear-powered space pod, or who wants to commit suicide, would not find it essential.
It may not be obvious why I recommend being so technically precise on this point, but it's necessary mental/semantic hygiene because when it comes to economics discussions you have to have this as clear as possible. The term "intrinsic value" makes it very easy to be led astray. It is a pitfall based on tribal instincts, which give humans the tendency to see value as inherent. It's a mental shortcut, but it's outlived its usefulness in our evolutionarily discordant environment. Economics basically consists of the mental clarifications necessary to analyze things usefully in non-tribal environments that we are not mentally adapted for.
It is critical to maintain utmost clarity on the fact that valuation is always an action or viewpoint of a given person or entity, never something that inheres in an object, and careful use of terms (and avoidance of loose or easily misinterpreted terms) is pretty important for that.
|
|
|
|
An increasingly globalised humanity is faced with climate change,
dwindling resources, overpopulation and technological upheaval. Not a promising start: climate change BS, "running out of resources" fallacy (economic ignorance), overpopulation OK maybe, technological "upheaval" (is this supposed to be bad!?). Desperate attempts are made to stabilise Earth's climate, as a
post-capitalist world begins to emerge. More climate change BS, "post-capitalist"...stopped reading there. Maybe I was too judgmental, but I can't imagine that someone so ignorant about the basics of how the world works (I think my high school teachers said the exact same thing as this) would have any reliable insight on the future. |
|
|
|
In this day and age, there are no valid reasons to adhere to economic theories developed over a century ago. Things have changed since then. The only excuses for maintaining this madness is ignorance and fear, which I, and many others, seek to dispel. There are better ways and new ideas. Explore them and engage them, don't be a pussy reactionary that appeals to the scary stories designed to make you believe your piece of land and ideology is better than someone else's piece of land and ideology. For people so distraught with government propaganda, you sure do espouse a great deal of economic propaganda that is no longer relevant or sustainable. It must be difficult living inside your own head with all of the contradictions and dualities that you must maintain. I'm sure it's exhausting and you are agitated when these assumptions are challenged. If your ideas were so well formed and valid, it would not necessitate your continued emotional outbursts and sophomoric assertions. Please start questioning what is clearly wrong with your belief system. You will feel better and appreciate the clarity it brings.
You haven't really said anything here. You don't need economics to understand why RBE is silly. You just need to define your terms. Go ahead. Scarce: __________________ <---- fill in the blank |
|
|
|
No intrinsic value is perfect. Imagine if grain was money. People would starve as you hoard it. Hoarding money harms nobody, it just enables others to use, now, the resources that you, the hoarder, does not use even if you have earned it.
If you do really think that hoarding money harms nobody then you are flat-out wrong. They can't use the resources you mention because there is no money that you have stashed away (provided there's no additional emission to make up for the "loss"). Ultimately, this would provoke a drop in prices, so producers will suffer  And don't try to argue against what I have just said. All of this has been known and proven long ago...  Can't tell if serious. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is more than just frictionless payments and finance. It's a complete restructuring of the world and the elimination of many inefficiencies that held people back. The removal of those inefficiencies isn't just going to make sending money cheaper and some online goods available at a discount. It will enable whole new industries like the Internet has, but it goes far beyond even that. It fundamentally, radically decentralizes power. It blows away most of the borders that kept people from participating in the international division of labor. It thwarts all kind of oppression, especially economic oppression.
It is "rat poison," as Charlie Munger inadvertently said, or as Chamath Palihapitiya called it, "schmuck insurance." Power to the people. Truly free markets, everywhere. Think China during Mao's reign versus now. That's the kind of change that's coming. Even for people who never invest in this bull market.
Enjoying your bullishness, which is quite clearly rooted in a deep understanding of the broad picture of what is happening. And thanks for sharing so much quality material. That kind of quality is deserving of its own thread - it will just be buried by memes, random predictions and little flame wars here. Actually now that I think about it I would enjoy another kind of observer thread - not a wall observer thread focused on trading and daily price movements, but a more laid back, philosophical observer of the whole Bitcoin economy focused on longer time frames and broad implications. Also, praised be the current bearishness of rpietila, I enjoy that perspective as well. Thanks! There used to be a "fundamentals thread" that was cultivated pretty well, though it was a bit more about short/mid-term price drivers than the long-term aspects. I haven't seen it for a while. I've been trying to create a list of the best philosophical musings or broader analyses of the Bitcoin phenomenon and its repercussions for the world. Things are just changing so fast that it's hard to keep up. |
|
|
|
|
For example...
Litecoin:
1) issuance schedule --> [graph]
2) currency --> meager, but high relative to other altcoins
3) user base --> high
4) technical soundness/track record --> high
5) innovations --> low(?)
6) liquidity --> low, but high compared to other alts
7) strength of dev team --> high? and Charles Lee is well-connected, working at Coinbase and brother owns BTC China
8) market cap --> high
arbing: moderate, potentially, but not enough liquidity now
tumbling: somewhat helpful
hedging: moderate
testing: low
fallback: high, or low depending on reason for the posited Bitcoin failure
|
|
|
|
1) current number of coins
2) maximum number of coins
3) rate of growth in the supply of coins
4) how many people/businesses accept it as a form of payment
5) total number of users
6) technical aspects of the protocol
7) number of exchanges that allow conversion to other cryptos or fiat currencies
Rephrasing yours: 1) issuance schedule (incl. lack of premine) 2) currency (how much "currency" it has in the world - that is, how many people accept it) 3) user base 4) technical soundness (assuming bitcoin-based) and track record 5) innovations 6) liquidity More: 8) strength of dev team (very important) 9) MARKET CAP! (high market cap creates higher market cap) In terms of potential value, we should analyze bitcoin-like altcoins in terms of what value they bring to Bitcoin: - arbitrage (if MtGox had litecoins you could buy BTC with LTC at BTC-e and sell them on Gox for LTC, then repeat...much faster and cheaper than fiat...but BTC price is often correlated with LTC price, so less correlation is a plus here) - tumbling (making Bitcoin more anonymous by converting to another blockchain then back...more anonymous altcoins may be better) - hedging (same as with arbitrage, you want an altcoin that is less correlated with the BTC price) - testing new ideas (the more differentiated from Bitcoin, the better) - fallback in case of Bitcoin failure (both similarity and difference are useful...LTC is good because close, but if BTC fails due to PoW issue, PPC may be better) If they aren't Bitcoin-like, such as ProtoShares or MasterCoin, they perhaps should be evaluated on separate merits. |
|
|
|
They really need to hear this over on /r/Bitcoin. It is flooded with newbies who have no idea what they're doing. They'll be scared of their own shadow if they put in a few grand and don't have a plan. |
|
|
|
It looks from this like several million will be the correct figure.
I heard that only about 3 million bitcoin addresses are used. I would say that the number of addresses > number of users. Myself, I have used dozens of addresses, and don't consider to be a heavy user of addresses. It may be that many people are holding their coins on MtGox. Perhaps because they don't feel comfortable holding them themselves. Here's the magazine where I saw the interview:   |
|
|
|
- My gut feeling is that number of bitcoin holders was estimated a little too small last time - an analysis of Bitcoin client and wallet software userbases, (Rassah!  ) plus Coinbase users, Bittiraha.fi users and Localbitcoins activity, and new user count in exchanges, is what we need to find more reliable figures. In Japan, 週刊新潮 ( Shukan Shincho, a weekly news magazine/tabloid) published a section on Bitcoin this week featuring an interview with a MtGox rep. The rep said that they have 720,000 users, of which 400,000 are active/frequent, and that 20% of their users are Chinese, up from 4% in April. It looks from this like several million will be the correct figure. |
|
|
|
I was locked in for $300k, and now it is not delusional anymore, or even conservative, it is actually the initial step, and selling at that price should truthfully be called "selling your birthright for pea soup".
I <3 bitcoin. In the world of such abundance, who needs money anymore?
It's almost too good to be true. But sometimes things just are indeed very good, and usually that's because things sucked a lot before and that suckiness has been alleviated. |
|
|
|
I now he said that , but you didn't denied the word everyone , just the time frame.
And I really don't get it how you can say everyone is wealthy now by the 1950 standards.
Wha??? Even the beggars are bow wealthy by the feudal age standard?
I 'm missing something or I haven't had enough coffee.
Again, I said "almost everyone," so not necessarily including beggars. Consider how much things have really changed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-LJ3wZjD4I&t=3m45sThis speech is really good, thanks. You may also like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRhtmcxDSIs&t=3m15s |
|
|
|
I should really post my wisdom concerning position management, because so many are clueless about it.
Please do. Ultimately, lack of understanding or thought about position management is probably responsible for a lot of weak handedness, because people don't have complete confidence in what they're doing. Once they start to panic, it's too late for careful thought and they just dump everything. |
|
|
|
I now he said that , but you didn't denied the word everyone , just the time frame.
And I really don't get it how you can say everyone is wealthy now by the 1950 standards.
Wha??? Even the beggars are bow wealthy by the feudal age standard?
I 'm missing something or I haven't had enough coffee.
Again, I said "almost everyone," so not necessarily including beggars. Consider how much things have really changed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-LJ3wZjD4I&t=3m45s |
|
|
|
It's a nice story you put up here about all going rich fast etc... Do you ever wonder where these money came from? Maybe ALL the inflation around the world found its way into a new robust medium? Can someone say to me why the US (and other) Governments are backing up Bitcoin? Can someone say to me why the Banks are (silently) supporting it (or at least are not against it?). If you have answer to these questions then you *may* be able to predict where this is going (and why so fast). For the story; I don't. I'm just a regular here who posts memes... You might be thinking of the economy as a zero-sum game. Take a look at these: Trade is Made of WinTrade is Made of Win, Part 2 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
